Can Game Theory help reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions?
In the article “Can game theory help solve the problem of climate change?”, James Dyke discusses how game theory can help alleviate the effects of global warming. The article begins by talking about how cooperation among individuals in a community can help solve social problems, because cooperation can ultimately lead to a network of people in a community that can communicate with one another to help solve bigger issues—one of the main being climate change.
Climate change is caused the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Because of business and other corporations, carbon emissions have continued to increase rather than decrease. This can be related to the idea we discussed in class about individuals’’ wants. It is cheaper to release carbon dioxide when manufacturing products versus other environmentally friendly gases. Thus, these businesses and corporations choose their own interest rather than that of the entire group since people who emit carbon dioxide gain more wealth. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the interests of the people emitting them and the interests of the community as a whole must align.
The situation of climate change can be connected to game theory, which we had discussed in class. Game theory is based on the study of problems and cooperation among people or entities in a group. Essentially, everyone wants to do what is in their best interest, which could ultimately lead to increasing carbon dioxide emissions and a destruction of the environment. On the other hand, an outcome of equilibrium, where both the businesses and the individuals in a community come to an agreement, could be reducing the amount of global warming. Equilibrium, in this case, could be reached with regional or international agreements among corporations and the government (as representation for the community).
Dyke then goes on to elaborate another aspect of game theory where, if everyone cleaned up their own mess, it would benefit the whole community. In other words, people who emitted carbon dioxide would then purify the air as well. But since this purification also takes extra resources and money, there is no incentive for people do reduce emissions; therefore, Dyke proposes the idea that everyone will lose a catastrophic amount if carbon dioxide emissions continue. Ultimately, game theory shows that if everyone comes to an agreement where each individual understands the effects that could result from carbon dioxide emissions and then chooses to reduce their short-time wealth for long-time gains, we could better the community as a whole.